[Talk-us] Mapping rail trails

[Richard Fairhurst]

Kevin Kenny wrote:
> And route relations are important for sites like Waymarked Trails - 
> it totally ignores walking and cycling routes that are not indicated 
> with relations, which is why I wind up doing routes for even 
> relatively trivial stuff like
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4836600.(although 
> that certainly meets Richard's five-mile threshold).

Ok. I've just finished a pass through CONUS relationising pretty much all
the significant leisure trails I could find for which there weren't already
route relations. HDYC is telling me that "recently" I've added 334 bike
routes - I'm not sure what period that covers but it sounds about right.

By and large I've tagged them with network=lcn - there's certainly a case
for upgrading some to =rcn but I'll leave that to those with local
knowledge.

There's a bit of work still to do on smaller local trails that also form
part of a longer route - e.g. parts of the Bay Trail, or the East Coast
Greenway. It would be good to have a distinct C&O Canal Trail relation over
and above the USBRS 50 relation, for example.

cheers
Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/USA-f5284732.html